Why do feminists attack space exploration? The main reason is that space exploration has nothing specifically to do with women. As we know between 70% to 80% of government spending is a transfer from men to women. Money spent by governments on space exploration is money not spent on women. It doesn’t matter that the amount of money spent on space exploration (both by government and privately) is infinitesimal compared to the amount of money spent on women. Feminists are greedy and want it all. Attacking space exploration is also an extension of feminist attacks on science such as by Sandra Harding who called Newton’s Principia Mathematica a rape manual. Space exploration is also very nerdy, and feminists hate nerds as we see with things like #GamerGate.

Something to consider with nerds and space exploration is that space exploration is a way to escape Earth. In the last several decades, nerds went off on their own and created Silicon Valley and the modern tech industry. Feminists do not want to see that happen again with space exploration, especially since if nerds move to Mars (or elsewhere in space), they will be out of the reach of feminists.

We have all heard in the news how NASA’s New Horizons probe has reached Pluto. This is momentous occasion and an amazing achievement in space exploration. That means feminists will attack it just like we saw with Matt Taylor (and Tim Hunt). Since feminists don’t have the excuse of a shirt this time, they have to lie like they did with Tim Hunt. Since there is no opportunity to lie about a single male scientist this time, feminists are attacking NASA like in this article at The Good Mangina Project:

However, for nearly a decade—and longer—America has invested what I would is assume less than half of NASA’s budget on modernizing public education and recreation in the inner-cities.

Spending more dollars on exploring solar-systems than improving school systems is cause for gross critique, not mass celebration.

I don’t applaud America for what my fellow countrymen perceive is a milestone. To the contrary, I shame this rich nation for its skewed priorities. The type of decision making that says unseen space is more valued than an occupied place is not one that deserves respect nor admiration.

And though access to quality public education ranks high on my set of values, which is why I referred to it early on in this piece, other social issues—like veterans’ quality of life, diversity in the technology and news industry, and homelessness—also weigh on me deeply.

Why are feminists like the author of the article at The Good Mangina Project lying about NASA? Most government spending is a transfer from men to women. NASA is one of the few cases where this is not true. The article calls for more spending on “education”. That really means give more money to women since women dominate education and public sector jobs. NASA gets a tiny amount of government spending, but even one dollar spent on NASA is too much since it is not being spent on women. It’s not enough that 70% to 80% of government spending goes to women. They want it all.

And what do we have to show for spending on education and “social issues”, AKA spending on women? Nothing. Every year education gets worse. Various other problems get worse. And the amount of money spent on education and “social issues” grows tremendously each year. We would be better off sending that money into a black hole. Ironically, this would require NASA to build a ship to carry the money to a black hole which would probably do more for education and social issues than handing over 70% to 80% of public spending to women. And it would be cheaper by at least a factor of 100.

The Challenger disaster was horrendous but the long term fallout was bad as well. There is some danger in expanding the frontiers of the human race. There is no such thing as a guarantee of perfect safety especially on the bleeding edge like this. As everything becomes more feminized there has been less of a push into space. Sure NASA is still around and they still do stuff. Even without the Challenger disaster feminization would have destroyed space exploration, but the Challenger disaster helped move things along.

With feminization comes an overemphasis on safety, and that is death of real space exploration. With feminized schools boys who would have made a contribution to space exploration were destroyed before they could do great things. While plenty of science fiction has been overly optimistic about where we would be with respect to space exploration in 2011, the fact is that we should be at the point in space exploration right now where the moon is like Antarctica is right now (as in a place with science bases and as a relatively expensive vacation destination). We’re no where near that, and feminization is the reason we’re not. Just think of what would have been possible if everything wasn’t so feminized.

Forty years ago today men did something that has never been done before. Men landed on the moon. This was an achievement unparalleled in history. Before we were limited to just one planet. Even with the lack of manned space missions beyond Earth orbit, even now we have built the basis for civilization that extends to other planets. This is an example of one of the things men do, men push the limits of our frontiers.

As soon as Armstrong walked on the moon, all of the chattering classes (i.e. men who don’t produce anything and women) started talking nonsense about “imperialism in space” and other garbage. Why? Because they produce nothing. All of the men involved in the moon landing from Armstrong to all the engineers who worked on the spacecraft participated in moving civilization forward. These men accomplished an amazing feat.

Many predicted we would have cities on the moon right now. There are a couple of reasons we don’t. One is that when predicting the future a common mistake is the overestimate where we will be in the short term and underestimate where we will be in the long term. However, the other reason is the result of feminism (and socialism in general). Money spent on space, on moving civilization forward, is money that isn’t spent on the black hole of women. Take a look at the example of Walter Mondale. He wanted to get rid of the space program in its entirety. While having cities on the moon by now is overestimating big time we should be farther ahead in space then where we are now.

One of the things that men do is push the limits of our frontiers. On Friday this was evidenced by the beginning of the construction of Spaceport America in Upham, NM. This is where Richard Branson, the billionaire who own the Virgin conglomerate, is planning on running his Virgin Galactic business which exists to run flights into space.

Lots of people think this sort of thing is a waste. It’s not. In fact it’s vital. Outside of Antarctica and the oceans (and even in that case its the deep oceans) every spot on Earth is claimed by some government. In addition governments have been getting more and more socialist over time. In the past the United States acted as an escape valve that prevented things from becoming too bad. However, this could change with Obama as President. There’s a good chance that Obama will fail with the economy the way it is, but even then what about the next Obama. We can’t depend on the US as the only escape valve for freedom forever. Thus we need more escape valves and that will be in space, the deep oceans, and maybe even Antarctica.

Most of you know that the title of this post comes from Star Wars. Anytime I hear this spaceport talked about multiple someones say that it should be called Mos Eisley. Given that its in the desert it makes sense. Maybe I should buy some land in Upham, NM to start a cantina.